Interesting...

Yet the TiVCT is less dependent on hydraulics than the VCT was, correct?

 

Yes and no. In the 5.0, the Ti-VCT system uses CTA, but the problem/disadvantage of using CTA is that as engine speeds rise, there is less time for the valve spring energy to be dissapated (sp?) back into the timing chains. Car & Driver had a feature on it a few months back.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...stem-tech_dept

 

Can they afford NOT to....
Keeping the current car for 2 more MYs till the next redesign will leave it long in the tooth....especially considering its based on an already 7 year old design.

It'll be different enough to keep people interested.

As for the 5.8/6.2 IIRC were the same physical size (width/length wise) and got the added displcement from deck height.

 

Indeed. Luckily for us, Alan Mulally is a "product" man and realises that the buying public are pretty canny these days and won't just keep purchasing cars like their refridgerators. Keeping the product fresh is what has put Ford in the excellent position they are currently in. Long may that continue.

Remember, in the glory days of the Mustang's early years, the models were significantly updated every 2 years.

Looking forward to more information and spyshots leaking soon

 

Perhaps they need to do this to further differentiate the GT500 from the GT. Back in 2007 the GT500 made a whopping 200HP more than the GT. With the new 5.0 they have certainly bridged the gap quite a bit, even with the 2011 improvements. As great as the current GT500 is, sales seem to be dipping every year. Currently the market is flooded with used low mile GT500s I just wish I was in a position to buy one now.

The Corvette ZR1 makes 638HP. Perhaps Ford is shooting for that number keeping in mind that GM can easily put that motor in a Camaro.

 

Huh. Didn't know that.

Well, if you want to get technical about it, Ford does have an IRS sitting in the proverbial parts bin: the one that almost made it to market in 2005.

 

The question is: does that IRS handle better than the current upgrades to the SLA used on the 10+? I doubt it.

 

Not quite...
again, IIRC...they had to make some changes to accomodate the SRA.
it's not as simple as it just going drag-and-drop. (rear seat/floorpan)
Again I'm just pulling from the noggin...which seems to forget more lately
hahaha

 

That, I do not know. Had it made it to market, it would been standard equipment across the board, and would have allowed the fitting of larger brake calipers (a spy pic showed 4-piston calipers in back, something the live axle cannot accomodate). The picture I saw showed a beefy looking piece, so I'm assuming it could handle serious abuse, and since it was a part of the platform from the get-go, it would probably have handled better than its predecessor, the 99-04 Cobra IRS.

True, and that is what I read as well, but the fact remains that it sits in/on the proverbial parts bin/shelf, waiting to be used. Its a moot point, I know, seeing as all signs point to the next generation car having an IRS, but I felt it was worth mentioning.

 

It'll probably gain these lil led strips ford has been using quite often... Where the placement will be is anyone's idea.

 

Care to elaborate on this?

http://www.stage3motorsports.com/pro...-Calipers.html

 

I honestly did not know about those calipers. I guess I'll be eating that crow now. Anyone have any barbecue sauce?

 

IF TI-VCT can handle 7500 RPM on the boss motor it can handle whatever the supercharged 5.8 will spin at. though i do agree it would probably require additional engineering what we dont know is how significant. all we (us non-insiders) know is what has made it to production they may already have had plans in the works for this application but were waiting for a more significant upgrade to justify the QC work it would have to go through.

i suppose its worth noting too that the 5.4 3v has VCT so they must have some kind of hydraulics setup for the 5.4 to the cams

 

Nahh, no big deal. I think these are a bit much. A nice 4 pot set would be good, even a good 2 pot just to replace the floating calipers.

It seems all too doable at this point. I'm pretty sure there have to be variable valve timing systems that work at high RPM with ease. VTEC easily handles 8k so I'm sure it's all gravy.

 

Trying not to beat a dead horse, but I have to bring this up every time the SRA supporters say "it won't handle better."

The "handling better" is a very touchy subject. Settings to dampers and springs can make one handle "better" than the other with no problem. But usually at the cost of ride comfort. The unsprung mass of the SRA is an issue, no matter how good the settings are.

The real benefit of an IRS is handling on the street. It takes mid-corner bumps much better with much less unsettling. That usually makes for an easier and more confidence-inspiring ride which will definitely make it feel like it is handling better.

Now, take it to a strip and it is definitely not an advantage. Take it to a track and the advantage is almost negligible since tracks are usually very smooth and negate a lot of the performance "difference".

But, for those that drive on the street, it is definitely "better."
Well... at least in my opinion. I have driven lots of IRS cars that handled much "better" (on the street) than my Mustang -- even with upgraded springs/dampers.

 

At the levels that these cars perform at now, you will never be able to push it close enough to its limit on the street to take advantage of the difference between IRS and SRA over bumpy corners without going to jail, or putting the lives of yourself or others in serious jeopardy.


Just my opinion.

 

I think part of what he was saying is that an IRS would improve overall ride quality. If you live in an area with crappy roads like I do, you notice the SRA more than someone who is lucky enough to have nice roads.

 

Yes, thanks for clarifying -- that is more of what I meant to say/emphasize.


Isn't that like saying you can't use 400 hp on city streets? Yet, everyone craves more hp. Also, I would disagree a bit -- not in performance because you are right--that, you probably couldn't "use"--but in feel. The IRS would feel much nicer/smoother/controlled/"better."

 

Perhaps a better way to look at it is that an IRS can offer a much broader handling envelope than a live axle, which is ultimately limited by their daunting unsprung weight. As mentioned, on very ideal smooth roads/tracks/strips, even a go-cart suspension can be made to turn in hero numbers, as can a live axle with stiff tuning and sticky tires (exhibit one: Boss Mustang). Drag racing is a poor measure of any suspension's capabilities as something off a John Deere would more than suffice in the 1320, where a suspension basically only has to not do anything wrong, if not anything particularly well, i.e., hold still, hold straight and hold together. A quick peak at a top fuel dragster will show what an ultimate drag race suspension looks like, basically, there isn't any.

It's in the rough and tumble of real world driving that a live axle's track prowess can quickly deteriorate, limiting whatever Nth degree you can safely and effectively drive at. Sure, you can dial your progress WAY back in a live axle car to maintain safe progress, but isn't this just the opposite of what a performance car ought to be striving for, increasing the speed at which safe, confidant and capable progress can be made? While Ford has apparently done remarkable things with the SRA, it still ultimately is fighting against its competitors with one hand tied behind its back suspension-wise. This is not even to mention ride comfort, which, with a live axle, becomes a much narrower either/or option than with an IRS, where you can have your ride comfort cake AND eat up the competition at the track too -- without jarring your main squeeze senseless driving to that new club on date night.

Fortunately for the Stang, its lighter weight and svelter size helps make up for the live axle's inherent weaknesses against its ample and portly foes, as does a superior level of overall tuning prowess Ford has been exhibiting, doing more with less than the technically more capable Chevy/Dodge designs. However, the boys (and girls?) over at Chevy and Dodge R&D don't seem to be sitting around surfing the Web but are actively sharpening their handling knives to do further battle with the Stang. The 2011 Challenger has had some significant suspension tuning upgrades and you can be sure the Bow-Tie guys will certainly have upgrades for the Camaro by 2012, as hinted at by the ZL-1.

As for the Stang, it will almost certainly clomp along with the lively axle until the next full redesign. Apparently, in a short-sighted MBA- rather than engineering-inspired effort to pinch pennies with the S-197 by swapping out the intended IRS for presumably cheaper live axle, enough re-engineering had to be done that the near born IRS design was no longer a simple drop in. The irony of all this is that apparently, at the end of the day, all this delay and re-engineering ended up actually raising the cost of the SRA some $100/car ABOVE what sticking with the original IRS would have cost, negating any price advantage and leaving the Stang with a less capable, overall, rear suspension design in the end. I don't think Ford make that same mistake twice.

 

Just wow.
[IMG][/IMG]